These days, the hot topic in Korean cinema is "The King and the Man."

Living in the U.S., I find myself intrigued when I hear about Korean films breaking the ten million viewer mark.

This is the latest work by director Jang Hang-jun, and critics have rated it around three stars.

However, looking at the CGV Egg Index, it shows 97%. This is nearly unanimous approval.

When there is this kind of temperature difference between critics and audiences, it usually indicates one of two things.

The film either resonates perfectly with the public's emotions, or the critics are trapped in their own standards.

In my opinion, this case definitely leans towards the former.

When asked if the film is original, the answer is no. When asked if there are new attempts in the direction, the answer is also no.

The story structure is familiar and does not stray far from clichés. Yet, strangely, it is not boring. Why is that?

The reason is simple. The overall composition is stable without any dragging sections.

It is also noteworthy that this film is receiving the best reviews in Jang Hang-jun's filmography.

This means the director has reached the peak of his abilities. It is the result of relying on fundamentals without showing off technical skills.

The bond between Eom Heung-do and Lee Hong-wi, and the ruthlessness of Han Myeong-hui.

The key is that this is convincingly conveyed through the actors' performances.

What is particularly impressive is the tone of the acting. The villains do not overact. The heroes do not force emotional moments.

Overall, there is a restrained atmosphere. This makes it feel even more real. It allows the audience to immerse themselves in the emotions without feeling burdened.

From my experience watching many American dramas, I feel that works with restrained acting tend to last longer.

Exaggerated performances may have immediate impact but fade quickly. This film chose the opposite approach, and I believe it worked.

Among the names most frequently mentioned by audiences is Yoo Hae-jin. This film is literally carried by Yoo Hae-jin's performance.

He has had a strong comedic image until now. However, in this work, he naturally transitions between comedy and tragedy.

Without overtly displaying emotions, he brings life to the scenes.

Scenes that could easily come off as boring or melodramatic change in density when Yoo Hae-jin appears. This is simply a matter of innate acting talent.

Park Ji-hoon, who plays Danjong, naturally transforms from an anxious and weak character in the beginning to one with a determined gaze in the latter half.

To stand out among seasoned actors is a remarkable achievement. Many reviews mention that there are no weak performances, even in supporting or minor roles.

The coup of Gyeongju itself is a subject that has been dealt with countless times in Korean historical dramas.

However, there are surprisingly few works that focus on the story of Danjong's exile afterward.

They chose a relatively less highlighted period within familiar history.

This can be seen as a blue ocean positioning within a red ocean in marketing.

Within the familiar genre of historical drama, they found a new angle for the audience to emotionally engage.

Having topics to discuss after watching the movie also contributed to its success.

One downside is that while the actors' performances are excellent, there are criticisms that the emotional transitions were not sufficiently built up.

Especially in the early to mid-parts. The scene transitions are quick, and there are many parts that rely on explanatory dialogue, but I have not seen it yet, so I have to wait.

Some music and lines also divide opinions. While the intention to emphasize emotions is evident, there are many opinions that it actually hinders immersion.

Still, I believe that the significance lies in the fact that a film has emerged that draws audiences back to theaters in a stagnant Korean film market.

What the market wants is not film festival trophies, but content that audiences are willing to pay to see.

What does it matter if critics give it three stars? If 97% of the audience is satisfied, that is what matters.